From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Torsten Kaiser" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100 Message-ID: <64bb37e0712310817g621d818dyebbf2228063d4d5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071231144255.GB13803@does.not.exist> <64bb37e0712310755k2446e67eq81d31cd476eb75e3@mail.gmail.com> <200712311659.14847.mb@bu3sch.de> <20071231160140.579f0fb2@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Michael Buesch" , "Adrian Bunk" , "Bodo Eggert" <7eggert@gmx.de>, "Jan Engelhardt" , devzero@web.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Alan Cox" Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]:22903 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751216AbXLaQRU (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:17:20 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so9084583pyb.10 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:17:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20071231160140.579f0fb2@the-village.bc.nu> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Dec 31, 2007 5:01 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > > I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero. > > Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto > > banning external modules? > > It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using it. Hmm... Why? a) this could be disabled during development if you want this b) this would even only affect development if you add new code that now needs a EXPORT_SYMBOL that was removed on an earlier build. And right now this would also need to trigger a rerun of depmod. And the same trigger could redo this garbage collect. Or am I missing something obvious? > The entries are currently far bigger than is needed and fixing that would > be much more productive. Can't say anything about that. ;) Torsten